<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
<head>
<title>Take It! No, It's Yours, Really!: The Excellent Inevitability of Free</title>
</head>

<body>

<!-- build page info -->


<div class="page" title="Take It! No, It's Yours, Really!: The Excellent Inevitability of Free">

<h1>Take It! No, It's Yours, Really!: The Excellent Inevitability of Free</h1>
<p>Most of the time, we – being most individuals and organizations in the entitled, decision-making countries of the world – are all for free speech. In fact, freedom of expression is one of the founding concepts of many of the bossiest nations; it’s often referred to as a “basic human right,” like food, or cable TV. If you take those spoken words, however, and write them down, type them up, record them, render them in clay, cast them in bronze, or knit them into a sweater…that free speech becomes <em>property</em>. That’s because we (same group again) are also founded upon some pretty intimidating capitalist traditions. We base our current economic models on the assumption that calling something property means it has an owner who has a right to profit from their ownings. That’s how property ticked along for many years, anyway, until recently, when the warp-speed of changing technology mucked with, well, <em>everything</em> related to the idea of intellectual property.</p>
<p>And thank goodness it did. Frankly, it was time for a change: this whole paying-or-pirating thing was getting a little old. In the realm of publishing, recent technological developments have taken place with unprecedented speed. The rapid rise of e-books, readers, digital editions, apps for the iPhone, and _____<a name="_ftnref1" href="#_ftn1">*</a> have rendered traditional rules of intellectual property and authorship at best incomplete and, at worst, irrelevant. Digital and e-publishing rights, only for the overcautious (or uber-geeky) until a few years ago, are now a fundamental clause in contracts between a “creator” and a “distributor” of the creator’s work, whatever the medium of the work or the method of distribution might be. If specific rules are not laid out for digital rights, the distributor risks the creator taking matters into their own hands; publishers and producers of digital content could lose their hold on the key to the DRM protections that attempt to stifle attempts as <em>sharing</em> the content. Shudder.</p>
<p>So what if we stop fighting the current? What if we instead accept that – as Stewart Brand, the oft-quoted free-leaning brain behind the <em>Whole Earth Catalogue</em>, has noted – “information wants to be free<a name="_ftnref2" href="#_ftn2">[1]</a>”? This is where open source information swoops in with an answer: forget the meticulously worded contracts, the anti-sharing encryptions, and withholding access to information from those who cannot afford it. Do as you learned in grade school. <em>Share</em>. (And do it for free).</p>
<p>In the spirit of free – an inherently transparent ideology – I’d like to cite some materials that have only been available to me for the past 36 hours. Ostensibly, this outs me as a procrastinator of the highest order. I prefer to see it as an indication of the speed with which methods of accessing information are changing…okay, I still look pretty bad. So then let me distract you with a selection from <em>Piracy: The Intellectual Property Wars from Gutenberg to Gates</em>, a book that I downloaded free of charge from the publisher, the University of Chicago Press.</p>
<p>In <em>Piracy</em>, author Adrian Johns discusses the issues inherent in the business of transferring information, whether that info is being bought, sold, traded, or even given away. Johns considers the ethics of sharing information and the tendency for publishers to want to protect what they produce. He suggests that the “problems” that strict, built-in anti-sharing mechanisms and other forms of digital rights management (DRM) purport to solve are not issues of protecting “intellectual property,” but involve “the core issues of political theory and practice: issues of privacy, accountability, and autonomy<a name="_ftnref3" href="#_ftn3">[2]</a>.” Framed in this way, it sounds like sharing information freely is like running around with your eyes closed the top of a dangerous slippery precipice. “One false move,” Johns seems to say, “one freely distributed morsel, and privacy and autonomy will go out the window. And with accountability gone, too, we won’t even know who to blame” – alright, that may be a little dramatic, but the author’s scaremongering sentiment remains. Johns is correct in noting that distributing information willy-nilly will have implications for privacy, accountability, and autonomy, but he needn’t be so alarmist. Freeing up information for everyone to use – <em>everyone</em>, worldwide – has many positive implications as well; ones that outweigh the danger that DRM and similar measures purport to defend us against<a name="_ftnref4" href="#_ftn4">[3]</a>.</p>
<p>But if information is made freely available to everyone, how will anyone make any money? Of course, everyone needs to earn a living, and right now some authors and artists do that by signing contracts with publishing houses. For the creative minds that can subsist on the fairly small profits they earn from giving a publisher the right to print their work, maybe the current paid system is alright. Weigh the numbers and measure the long tail, however, and it turns out (somewhat counter-intuitively) that free distribution is often more lucrative for the creator(s) of the work – be it a novel they are sharing, a reference book, the ingredients for a vaccine, or a recipe for beer. And, as the world saw in 2007 with Radiohead’s <em>In Rainbows</em> – an album the band released for download for whatever price a fan was willing to pay for it, even if that meant nothing at all – it translates to income, whether the content is being directly charged for or not<a name="_ftnref5" href="#_ftn5">[4]</a>.</p>
<p>When the charges usually levied for using “intellectual property” are dissolved, the ideas and information therein become something much more positive, offering assistance, education, and entertainment to whoever wants to take part. While the creator of the work may not be benefiting monetarily from every use, they’re gaining something that no amount of targeted marketing, press releases, or email blasts can exactly duplicate: genuine enthusiasm. Just ask Radiohead<a name="_ftnref6" href="#_ftn6">[5]</a>.</p>
<p>In positing the dangers of sharing information, Johns has actually landed on the power of free: that it levels the currently rather uneven playing field of knowledge. What’s more, transforming “intellectual property” into something more like an intellectual community centre reflects positively on the contributors, and allows word-of-mouth to travel unhindered by DRM and the fine print of copyrights and contracts. When everyone has equal access, everyone is equal. <em>That</em> is a basic human right.</p>
<p>On the far end of the spectrum from the ideas presented in <em>Piracy </em>by its pessimistic skipper, we have Chris Anderson and <em>Free</em>. In this, his newest book, Anderson reviews the various models of “free” that are currently in circulation, and considers how we got to where we are today: a place in history where nearly anything is available for free, if you have the time, patience, and enough tech-savvy to access it. Beginning with Gillette razors, Anderson traces Free from its earliest appearances as a baited hook to snag lifelong customers, to the now-common three-party model (a familiar one in publishing) in which advertisers subsidize content<a name="_ftnref7" href="#_ftn7">[6]</a> by paying for ads so that access is free for potential consumers. He considers how Mozilla Firefox – a company that has less than 100 employees – “runs circles around Microsoft<a name="_ftnref8" href="#_ftn8">[7]</a>,” and finds the “Freemium<a name="_ftnref9" href="#_ftn9">[8]</a>” model – where the basic product is free but the “premium version” is charged for, enough to subsidize the giveaway - in every facet of our ostensibly capitalist communities. Naturally, Anderson’s dissection of free also covers Google, a company that proves to even the most sceptical reader that profitability can co-exist with freeness: sharing is Google’s core philosophy, and few would argue that they’re experiencing any sort of struggle or decline.</p>
<p>Anderson’s book is packed with useful anecdotes and clever examples of free in action – far too many to detail here. His overarching message is abundantly clear: free is the future. Unrestricted access to information is a source of social good, which alone should motivate at least a few to move their ideals from “intellectual property” to “open-access commons.” Furthermore, with “Generation Free<a name="_ftnref10" href="#_ftn10">[9]</a>” taking over the economy soon anyways, we might as well not fight it. For old people who like having money (this really applies to industries other than publishing), Anderson shows again and again that free doesn’t mean worthless. Free actually <em>increases</em> the worth of ideas by allowing them to spread, gain momentum, and affect change on increasingly large groups of people. It seems to make it big in the near future (and I mean Google big), it’s a good idea to nix the barriers of DRM, user fees, and copyright, and let free work for you: even children know sharing is the right thing to do.</p>
<p>For further reference:</p>
<ul>
<li>ACTA on Wikipedia: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement</a></li>
<li>Anderson, Chris. <em>Free: The Future of a Radical Price</em>.  Hyperion: New York, 2009. Available for download on Chris’ blog, <em>The  Long Tail</em>:</li>
<li>Creative Commons: <a href="http://creativecommons.ca/">http://creativecommons.ca/</a></li>
<li>Free Software Foundation: <a href="http://www.fsf.org/">http://www.fsf.org/</a></li>
<li>Johns, Adrian. <em>Piracy: The Intellectual Property Wars from  Gutenberg to Gates.</em>Chicago UP: Chicago, 2009. Available from  Shannon, if you’d like a copy (the free download was, sadly, a  one-day-only offer. On the way to free, there’s still some distance to  go.)</li>
<li>Microsoft’s DRM Policy: <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/forpros/drm/default.mspx">http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/forpros/drm/default.mspx</a></li>
<li>Open Source on Wikipedia: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source</a></li>
<li>Radiohead’s Official Website: <a href="http://www.radiohead.com/deadairspace/">http://www.radiohead.com/deadairspace/</a></li>
</ul>
<p> </p>
<hr width="33%" size="1" />
<p><a name="_ftn1" href="#_ftnref1">*</a> This space can be filled in with whatever new gizmo has been released since this paper was submitted. If you need more space, please just hit "edit" and add to the wiki yourself.</p>
<p><a name="_ftn2" href="#_ftnref2">[1]</a> Quoted in Chris Anderson’s <em>Free: The Future of a Radical Price</em> (96)</p>
<p><a name="_ftn3" href="#_ftnref3">[2]</a> From Adrian Johns’ <em>Piracy: The Intellectual Property Wars from Gutenberg to Gates</em> (508)</p>
<p><a name="_ftn4" href="#_ftnref4">[3]</a> In Canada, organizations like Creative Commons work to ensure that authors who allow others to access their work free of charge are still given credit as the creators. For more, see Creative Commons’ licensing explanation at <a href="http://creativecommons.ca/index.php?p=explained"><a href="http://creativecommons.ca/index.php?p=explained">http://creativecommons.ca/index.php?p=explained</a></a></p>
<p><a name="_ftn5" href="#_ftnref5">[4]</a> After Radiohead released <em>In Rainbows</em>, the album went on to become their most commercially successful. It sold (!) 3 million copies worldwide, taking into account the sliding scale downloads as well as sales of physical CDs, a deluxe two-CD box set priced at $80 (which alone sold 100,000 copies), a vinyl record, and sales through iTunes and other digital retailers. The concert series that followed sold 1.2 million tickets, the most of any of Radiohead’s many successful tours since their formation in 1985. (Taken from Chris Anderson’s <em>Free</em>, 152-154).</p>
<p><a name="_ftn6" href="#_ftnref6">[5]</a> <a href="http://www.radiohead.com/deadairspace/"><a href="http://www.radiohead.com/deadairspace/">http://www.radiohead.com/deadairspace/</a></a></p>
<p><a name="_ftn7" href="#_ftnref7">[6]</a> <em>Free</em>, 25.<em></em></p>
<p><a name="_ftn8" href="#_ftnref8">[7]</a> <em>Free</em>, 111.</p>
<p><a name="_ftn9" href="#_ftnref9">[8]</a> <em>Free, </em>26-27, 165-66, 253.</p>
<p><a name="_ftn10" href="#_ftnref10">[9]</a> <em>Free</em>, 142</p>
<p> </p>
<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> Normal   0               false   false   false      EN-CA   X-NONE   X-NONE                                                     MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 </xml><[endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> </xml><[endif]--><!--  --><!--[if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><!   /* Style Definitions */  table.MsoNormalTable 	{mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; 	mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; 	mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; 	mso-style-noshow:yes; 	mso-style-priority:99; 	mso-style-qformat:yes; 	mso-style-parent:""; 	mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; 	mso-para-margin-top:0cm; 	mso-para-margin-right:0cm; 	mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; 	mso-para-margin-left:0cm; 	line-height:115%; 	mso-pagination:widow-orphan; 	font-size:11.0pt; 	font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; 	mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; 	mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; 	mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; 	mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; 	mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; 	mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} --> <!--[endif]--></p>
<p><strong>Notes from Kelsey</strong></p>
<p>Shannon, thanks for a really interesting read! It ties together a lot of the things that have been puzzling me lately in tech class, from copyright and piracy to business models for publishing that are actually going to work in the new digital world. Thanks for dealing with these big, important issues!</p>
<p>I haven’t read Anderson’s <em>Free</em> (but should), and was really interested to read about the different models of free that actually work to turn a profit – it makes a lot of sense to me. For the sake of argument, I read an article by <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/07/06/090706crbo_books_gladwell?currentPage=1#ixzz0f6iFD0NY">Malcolm Gladwell</a> where he challenges the notion that information wants to be free. “Information can’t actually want anything, can it? <em>Amazon</em> wants the information in the Dallas paper to be free, because that way Amazon makes more money. Why are the self-interested motives of powerful companies being elevated to a philosophical principle?” I don’t think I fully agree with Gladwell here, but I take his point that it is various <em>groups</em> who want information to be free: content users who have come to expect it, and businesses who want to make money from it. That corporate reality takes away some of the idealism of “information wants to be free” for me...</p>
<p>I think there’s still going to be a lot of resistance from creators in giving away their work for free, even if it can be shown (as it has) to make financial sense. But a way to get them more used to this sort of idea might be through sampling. As a society, we’re already used to sampling in digital and non-digital forms: <a href="http://www.irwinlaw.com/books.aspx?bookid=120">Laura Murray</a> points out that we can try on clothes before we buy them, we can download a trial version of software (like I did last semester with InDesign). We can browse books in bookstores, and we can listen to 30-second song clips on iTunes. So for publishing, I think that offering samples of content for free might be a model that will work as a compromise for both creators and users.</p>
<p>Speaking of sampling, you can’t download the Piracy book free from the University of Chicago Press anymore, but you can <a href="http://books.google.ca/books?id=jFMEPUO7LS0C&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;dq=Piracy:+The+Intellectual+Property+Wars+from+Gutenberg+to+Gates&amp;cd=1#v=onepage&amp;q=&amp;f=false">read a significant portion of it on Google Books</a>. (There’s a section all about the Google Books Settlement in the book as well, which seems especially ironic – or something – to be reading <em>through </em>Google Books.) The University of Chicago Press is clearly trying to figure out how to work this free/sampling concept, too!</p>
<p>Thanks again, Shannon, for raising some really important issues so well!</p>
<hr />
<p><a name="Johnsays"></a><strong>John says:</strong> Shannon, you write so well I had to read and re-read your excellent essay a couple of times before I came to the conclusion you'd pulled your punches.</p>
<p>You begin powerfully, pointing out how Johns' argument contains the seeds of its own refutation (at least that what I think you're saying), but then you end on a much more simplistic note à la Chris Anderson. So where does that leave us? If it's so clear that the world would work better if we opened things up a lot more, then how on earth do we get there from here? In class we discussed the idea of government flowing money back to creators (and creative types in Canada have talked about a guaranteed annual income decades ago). Is that they way to go, d'you think? Or do you think the free market is a better way to get us there? I wish you'd dug in a bit more toward the end. Anderson irks me sometimes by being facile... and the notion of the inevitability of Free does nothing to help anyone figure out what to do next.</p>
<p>Kelsey's comments are great... thought I'd weigh in with Cory Doctorow's recent comments on the "info wants to be free" meme:</p>
<p>From @doctorow on twitter:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><em><span class="entry-content">“Information wants to be free” is  lazy, stupid shorthand for a complex and nuanced discussion that can be  readily found…</span> </em></p>
<p><em> <span class="entry-content"> Example: Copyfighters don’t want  open gov-data because “info wants to be free.” They want it because they  paid for it with tax…</span> </em></p>
<p><em> <span class="entry-content">Copyfighters don’t want the right  to excerpt and quote b/c info wants to be free – it’s b/c this is the  basis of all discourse</span> <span class="status-body">…</span> </em></p>
<p><span class="entry-content"> <em>Copyfighters don’t want the right to build on earlier  works b/c “info wants to be free”—it’s b/c that's how all creativity  starts…</em> </span></p>
</blockquote>
 </div>


</body>
</html>